Blog

Greenwich Time — 'Shield law' not perfect, but needed

Though the reputation of the press has been at a low ebb in recent years, the media needs to be free and feisty for a democratic society to flourish. With that in mind, the Senate should take up and pass the Free Flow of Inf

Greenwich Time, Stamford, Conn. September 8, 2008

Though the reputation of the press has been at a low ebb in recent years, the media needs to be free and feisty for a democratic society to flourish. With that in mind, the Senate should take up and pass the Free Flow of Information Act, a national “shield law.”

Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia already offer some degree of protection for journalists. Under the federal measure, prosecutors trying to compel a journalist to reveal a confidential source would first have to explore all other alternatives. A federal judge could compel testimony if lives were considered in danger, but in most circumstances, a journalist would have a greater ability to protect confidential sources.

There are dangers inherent in any shield law. Most people think of confidential sources as whistle-blowers exposing wrongdoing, and people using their positions of insider knowledge to correct problems that might otherwise go unreported. In such cases, anonymity can be vital to protect a source's livelihood or, in some cases, safety.

But recent years have seen the emergence of a new phenomenon cases of government sources using their anonymity for partisan political purposes. Instead of serving the public good, anonymous leaks have been used to advance agendas.

That was the situation with the leak involving former CIA agent Valerie Plame and the run-up to the war in Iraq. Government sources hid behind journalists' vows of anonymity to undermine the credibility of information that

didn't suit their purposes.

That's shady, at best, on the part of government officials, but it's incumbent upon reporters to make sure they are not being used in that manner. That can be harder to do in our current instant-news culture, but it's no less important today than it was in the past.

Still, the risk of abuse is worth it. The government these past few years has demonstrated an increasing desire to make reporters give up names, thus discouraging other sources from coming forward. The effect that ultimately could have on citizens' ability to know what their government is doing is chilling. Mistrusted media or not, it's doubtful many would prefer a country in which the people were limited to information that reporters were given at press conferences.

We are encouraged that both of our senators, Christopher Dodd and Joseph Lieberman, are co-sponsors of the Senate bill.

Ideally, a shield law would apply only to whistle-blowers and other altruistic truth-tellers. As it stands, the law should be passed, and judges should be careful to consider each claim of privilege individually.